MORALES CHAVEZ v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Edgar Morales Chavez was convicted in a bench trial of Level 6 felony criminal confinement ¹ and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.² A native Spanish speaker in need of interpretation services, Morales Chavez raises a single issue for review: Did he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial? We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 5, 2024, Morales Chavez’ romantic partner reported to police that he had battered, intimidated, and held her against her will since the previous day. As a result, the State charged Morales Chavez with one count of each of the following: criminal confinement; domestic battery; kidnapping; battery resulting in bodily injury; and intimidation.

[3] During all trial court proceedings, a certified interpreter was present to translate from English to Spanish, including at the initial hearing, multiple pretrial conferences, and the bench trial. On August 7, 2024, the court held a pretrial conference following Morales Chavez’ request to waive jury trial. The trial court questioned Morales Chavez regarding his intent to waive trial by jury, in relevant part as follows:

THE COURT: I have before me a signed document that is entitled waiver of trial by jury. I see initials E.M. on this document. Are those your initials?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: I see a signature above the defendant line. Is that your signature?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you go over this document with your attorney?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand the document?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Did anyone force you or give you anything of value or threaten you to sign this document?

DEFENDANT: No, nobody.

THE COURT: Did you sign this document of your own free will?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that you do have a right to a trial by jury in this matter consisting of six members of the public coming in and deciding all six whether the State has proven [its] case beyond a reasonable doubt?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: But after consultation with your attorney, it is your decision to have the Court decide whether the State has proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial if you go to trial?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

Tr. Vol. 2 at 18–19.³ The trial court accepted the waiver and set Morales Chavez’ case for a bench trial.

[4] Between the pretrial conference in August 2024 and the bench trial in February 2025, Morales Chavez raised no objection to the bench trial. Nor did he do so on the bench trial date itself. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Morales Chavez guilty of criminal confinement and domestic battery.⁴

Morales Chavez knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently relinquished his right to jury trial.

[5] “The jury trial right is a bedrock of our criminal justice system, guaranteed by both Article [1], Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1158 (Ind. 2016). In felony cases, the right to jury trial is automatic. Carmouche v. State, 188 N.E.3d 482, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022); see also Ind. Crim. Rule 3.1(A).

[6] A defendant may waive his right to a jury trial when he does so “personally, reflected in the record before the trial begins either in writing or in open court.” Good v. State, 366 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (Ind. 1977); see also I.C. § 35-37-1-2 (2015) (“The defendant and prosecuting attorney, with the assent of the court, may submit the trial to the court. Unless a defendant waives the right to a jury trial under the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure, all other trials must be by jury.”). Waiver of the right to a jury trial “must be made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner, with sufficient awareness of the surrounding circumstances and the consequences.” Doughty v. State, 470 N.E.2d 69, 70 (Ind. 1984). Whether a defendant waived a jury trial is a matter we review de novo. Horton, 51 N.E.3d at 1157.

[7] We review the entire record to determine whether the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right. Duncan v. State, 975 N.E.2d 838, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). A knowing waiver arises from an informed will; a voluntary waiver is the product of a free will; and an intelligent waiver arises from a will with the capacity to understand. Id. at 842–43. A defendant who has been convicted by trial or plea is no longer presumed innocent, and “the prevailing rule is that he bears the burden of establishing grounds on which the conviction should be set aside.” Nunez v. State, 43 N.E.3d 680, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

[8] In this case, Morales Chavez alleges waiver of his right to trial by jury was constitutionally deficient because he “could not read English and the record contains no evidence that the waiver was explained or translated into Spanish[.]” Appellant's Br. at 9. He faults the trial court for not “meaningfully inquir[ing] into his language comprehension or whether he had received a Spanish-language explanation of the waiver document.” Id. at 10. But the court specifically inquired whether he had discussed the document and its contents with his attorney, and Morales Chavez acknowledged he did. As the State argues, the “most reasonable inference is that the form was translated into Spanish for [Morales Chavez] to understand or that his attorney used an interpreter when reviewing the form[.]” Appellee's Br. at 9.

[9] Even if the jury waiver form was not transcribed into Spanish, review of the entire record demonstrates he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional right to a jury trial. Morales Chavez initialed and signed the trial waiver form and then submitted it to the trial court for consideration. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 63–64. At the pretrial conference, the court questioned Morales Chavez about his waiver. A certified interpreter was present and translated the proceedings from English to Spanish. First, the court ensured Morales Chavez initialed and signed the waiver of his own free will. Second, the trial court verified Morales Chavez understood the contents of the form after consulting his attorney. Third, the court ascertained Morales Chavez grasped the consequences of relinquishing his right to a jury trial. In particular, the court asked Morales Chavez if he understood he was giving up his right to have “six members of the public coming in and deciding ․ whether the State has proven [its] case beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 19. Morales Chavez verified he understood. He further lodged no objection to a bench trial between the August pretrial conference and the trial in February 2025, or on the bench trial date.

[10] And Moralez Chavez points us to nothing in the record to demonstrate he was confused about the form or his waiver. On the contrary, his expressions of waiver were unambiguous and unequivocal. In the absence of questions by Morales Chavez and other signs indicating lack of understanding or illiteracy, the trial court was warranted in finding he understood the proceedings. Based on these facts, Morales Chavez’ waiver was not constitutionally invalid. See Nunez, 43 N.E.3d at 683 (discussing conditions necessary for validity of waiver).

Conclusion

[11] Morales Chavez knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently surrendered his right to a jury trial.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a) (2019).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) (2021).

3.   The waiver form referenced by the trial court appears in the record in English only. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 63–64.

4.   The court dismissed the charges of kidnapping and battery resulting in bodily injury based on double jeopardy. The court found Morales Chavez not guilty of intimidation.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.